On the Moon landings.

Monty Burnz

Dr Expired wrote: »

The hundreds of thousands of peolple; i don't know; maybe its down to compartmentalization in a organization like NASA.

I hope any China mission would make a curtesy call on historic landing sites.

You've been shown satellite photographs that show mysterious tracks on the lunar surface where NASA claimed to have landed. If the astronauts didn't make them, you're going to have to believe a much, much stranger conspiracy.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

The hundreds of thousands of peolple; i don't know; maybe its down to compartmentalization in a organization like NASA.

How could it be? You'd need thousands of people to operate the secret robotic space program you need to collect the rocks. Plus you'd need the thousands of people more to develop the robotics for that mission, then have them ever mention it or ever use that technology ever again.
Or you need to pay off every single geologist in the world for the last 40 years.
Then there's the thousands of physicists would would be able to see the fakery, plus all the astronomers and engineers.
Then you need to buy off the people who regularly use the lunar rangefinders.
Then you need everyone who works on imaging the moon plus a team to fake all the images.
And so on.

Your position requires that hundreds of thousands of people are in on this conspiracy for apparently no good reason at all.

Dr Expired wrote: »

I hope any China mission would make a curtesy call on historic landing sites.

But why would that convince you when the literal mountain of other evidence and logic did not?

Dr Expired

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You've been shown satellite photographs that show mysterious tracks on the lunar surface where NASA claimed to have landed. If the astronauts didn't make them, you're going to have to believe a much, much stranger conspiracy.

I agree with you that i've been shown photographs that show mysterious tracks.

Monty Burnz

Dr Expired wrote: »

I agree with you that i've been shown photographs that show mysterious tracks.

So now you have to believe that:

1. The moon landings happened as was always claimed, and as was believed by those people living, working and observing the activities as they actually happened.

or

2. Someone else landed on the moon and walked around.

If you believe number 2 then you will have to explain why that is possible but number 1 isn't, and you'll also have to explain who actually made the tracks, and how they did it with out without anyone finding out, and why they didn't tell anyone they were doing it.

Which of these, on the balance of probabilities, seems more likely to be true? Occam's Razor is, as usual, very handy here.

Dr Expired

King Mob wrote: »

How could it be? You'd need thousands of people to operate the secret robotic space program you need to collect the rocks. Plus you'd need the thousands of people more to develop the robotics for that mission, then have them ever mention it or ever use that technology ever again.
Or you need to pay off every single geologist in the world for the last 40 years.
Then there's the thousands of physicists would would be able to see the fakery, plus all the astronomers and engineers.
Then you need to buy off the people who regularly use the lunar rangefinders.
Then you need everyone who works on imaging the moon plus a team to fake all the images.
And so on.
Dude, i'm 'sitting on the fence' about this.

If its proved once and for all that men first landed on the moon in 1969 then i will say "great".

If it transpires down the road that we did'nt then i will say "i always felt something was'nt wright"
Your position requires that hundreds of thousands of people are in on this conspiracy for apparently no good reason at all.

But why would that convince you when the literal mountain of other evidence and logic did not?

I'm not saying they did'nt but i'm also not going to say they 100% did either.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

I'm not saying they did'nt but i'm also not going to say they 100% did either.

But why are you on the fence about this?

Being on the fence means that you believe that the silly, nonsensical, cartoonish conspiracy I outlined (which is the minimum you'd need to carry it out) is not only possible, but as likely as the actual reality that they went to the moon.
This is exactly as silly as being on the fence about whether or not the world is flat.

So what specifically do you think "doesn't feel right"?

Why exactly would they even need to pull of such a ridiculous and pointless plot?

Dr Expired

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So now you have to believe that:

1. The moon landings happened as was always claimed, and as was believed by those people living, working and observing the activities as they actually happened.

or

2. Someone else landed on the moon and walked around.

If you believe number 2 then you will have to explain why that is possible but number 1 isn't, and you'll also have to explain who actually made the tracks, and how they did it with out without anyone finding out, and why they didn't tell anyone they were doing it.

Which of these, on the balance of probabilities, seems more likely to be true? Occam's Razor is, as usual, very handy here.

I was trying to be flippant about the 'see the photos remark'.

I believe in questioning everything. I dont need to be convienced, i just need to make up my own mind about it.

Monty Burnz

Dr Expired wrote: »

I was trying to be flippant about the 'see the photos remark'.

Uh..ok.

Dr Expired wrote: »

I believe in questioning everything. I dont need to be convienced, i just need to make up my own mind about it.

Who do you think made up my mind? You think the rest of us don't need to be convinced and we believe things at random?

Dr Expired

King Mob wrote: »

But why are you on the fence about this?

Being on the fence means that you believe that the silly, nonsensical, cartoonish conspiracy I outlined (which is the minimum you'd need to carry it out) is not only possible, but as likely as the actual reality that they went to the moon.
This is exactly as silly as being on the fence about whether or not the world is flat.

So what specifically do you think "doesn't feel right"?

Why exactly would they even need to pull of such a ridiculous and pointless plot?

I'm not some nut job that needs to be saved, in all fairness. (and i know you didnt say that, but that how it sounds to me).
I know alot of people have silly notions about the subject.
I keep an open mind about such things. Its good to question these things.
NASA do themselves no favours anyway. These did we / didnt we questions have been asked since day one.
If i can see my car and its colour and shape useing google earth, then why not use same technology to view the moon.

Monty Burnz

Dr Expired wrote: »

If i can see my car and its colour and shape useing google earth, then why not use same technology to view the moon.

Because the satellites that orbit the earth do not orbit the moon?

Because Google has very few customers on the moon and hence very little incentive to map every road and house on it?

I'm sure there must be other reasons but these were the first two that came into my head without thinking about it.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

I'm not some nut job that needs to be saved, in all fairness. (and i know you didnt say that, but that how it sounds to me).

And I didn't say that. If you're inferring it, it's from your end.

Dr Expired wrote: »

I know alot of people have silly notions about the subject.
I keep an open mind about such things. Its good to question these things.

And keeping an "open mind" about this is as silly as keeping an open mind about whether or not the Earth is flat.
You're not questioning anything, you're holding a very silly idea as if it was as likely as the reality.

Dr Expired wrote: »

NASA do themselves no favours anyway. These did we / didnt we questions have been asked since day one.

But these questions have been answered, or just plain stupid since the beginning.
But they are repeated anyway and then people with "open minds" like yourself accepting those inane, long debunked questions without questioning them like you say you do with reality.

Dr Expired wrote: »

If i can see my car and its colour and shape useing google earth, then why not use same technology to view the moon.

Like this question for instance.
If you spend five minutes trying to figure this out yourself it would be plain to you how silly it is.
Google earth is made from satellite imagery and then at the scales you are referring to, aerial photos.
The Moon does not have these satellites or planes or helicopters.
It does have some orbiters which get very low and close to the surface which take very high resolution images (which we posted). But these are 25km up, far higher than the cameras on planes used to take the images of your car.

Jonny7

Dr Expired wrote: »

If i can see my car and its colour and shape useing google earth, then why not use same technology to view the moon.

http://www.google.com/moon/

Mapping the moon is still in its infancy as you can see

Dr Expired

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Uh..ok.

Who do you think made up my mind? You think the rest of us don't need to be convinced and we believe things at random?

I know that.
Thats what i'm trying to get accross. I dont know if they did or didnt but i believe that in my life time i will be proven one way of the other.
For me at the moment its not fact.

Dr Expired

That me done.

Time will tell.

Dr Expired

Dr Expired wrote: »

That me done.

So what happened to "questioning everything"?

Dr Expired wrote: »

Time will tell.

It's already told. All the evidence is there, the only evidence against it is abject ignorance and theories of ridiculous cartoonish plots.

If you are willing to ignore all the of the evidence that we did land on the moon as well as ignore the gaping logical flaws in the conspiracy theory, nothing is going to convince you.

Dave!

Wow, nobody has managed to refute the debunking arguments, yet there's still people saying that they don't believe, yet can't provide any kind of reasoning for it! :eek: Just a visceral distrust of government probably, and that bleeds into every other ideology and belief they hold.

weisses

Dave! wrote: »

Wow, nobody has managed to refute the debunking arguments, yet there's still people saying that they don't believe, yet can't provide any kind of reasoning for it! :eek:

Agree fully man ... religion should be banned too :rolleyes:

Tzar Chasm

'Houston we have a bogey'

There are a/few such quotes from astronauts.

Just because NASA seem to be hiding a lot of stuff from us about the space missions and have been shown to doctor photos and edit things out of videos, do sent mean they aren't also telling some truth as well

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

Just a visceral distrust of government probably, and that bleeds into every other ideology and belief they hold.

Boards.ie Skeptics Forum

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org
www.theskepticsguide.org
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/

Your logical failure betrays the links in your sig.

Dave!

Just speculating BB, I'm not a mind reader. Nobody has put forth any kind of reasonable argument for the moon landings being fake, so it's more than likely an ideological thing which drives this belief.

stoneill

Dr Expired wrote: »

If i can see my car and its colour and shape useing google earth, then why not use same technology to view the moon.

Google Earth uses a mix of satellite (macro images) and aerial photographs (close up images).
You can see your house and car? That's a picture taken from an aeroplane.

Tzar Chasm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

'Houston we have a bogey'

There are a/few such quotes from astronauts.

Just because NASA seem to be hiding a lot of stuff from us about the space missions and have been shown to doctor photos and edit things out of videos, do sent mean they aren't also telling some truth as well

No there's not.
There's a few quotes that UFO believers take out of context and desperately try to add meaning to that isn't there.
For example, some cranks believe that when Jim Lovell said "Please be informed, there is a Santa Claus." after Apollo 8 came out form behind the moon for the first time, he was in fact delivering a cryptic message about aliens. And of course often, UFO believers just make up quotes or edit them completely.
The quote you gave is not actually a quote, but the nearest I could find was again from Jim Lovell or Frank Borman during the Gemini 7 mission.
Gemini 7 was the first spaceship to perform a rendezvous with a another.
The bogey was most likely Gemini 6A.

And the same goes for the stuff Nasa supposedly edits out. They are just the smallest smudges or out of place pixels taken out of context and misunderstood by people desperate for evidence that simply isn't there.

Mr. Loverman

kevmy85 wrote: »

scientists form one of the most open, transparent and trustworthy professions around today

Haha, good one!

Scientists are human too.

Monty Burnz

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Haha, good one!

Scientists are human too.

Indeed. I find random people with no qualifications and no accountability for their claims who post scientifically ignorant nonsense on the interwebs about subjects they have no formal training in far, far more credible. Although they are also human.

Mr. Loverman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. I find random people with no qualifications and no accountability for their claims who post scientifically ignorant nonsense on the interwebs about subjects they have no formal training in far, far more credible. Although they are also human.

Nice strawman.

Monty Burnz

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Nice strawman.

If you provide links to qualified and accredited space scientists (ideally a group, to help rule out the mentally ill) who believe the moon landings were faked, I will make a full apology.

Until then, I think the point stands.

Mr. Loverman

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you provide links to qualified and accredited space scientists (ideally a group, to help rule out the mentally ill) who believe the moon landings were faked, I will make a full apology.

Until then, I think the point stands.

You're still pulling a strawman!

I will spell it out for you:

• kevmy85 said scientists are one of the more trustworthy professions.
• I disagreed with kevmy85 (as I think all humans are capable of incredible levels of corruption, regardless of their career choice or regulations).
• you are now claiming that I am suggesting the opinions of anonymous people on forums are equal or better than the opinions of qualified scientists.

I hate talking to people who love using strawmen tactics so let's agree to just stop talking to each other.

Monty Burnz

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

You're still pulling a strawman!

I will spell it out for you:

• kevmy85 said scientists are one of the more trustworthy professions.
• I disagreed with kevmy85 (as I think all humans are capable of incredible levels of corruption, regardless of their career choice or regulations).
• you are now claiming that I am suggesting the opinions of anonymous people on forums are equal or better than the opinions of qualified scientists.

I hate talking to people who love using strawmen tactics so let's agree to just stop talking to each other.

Fair enough. But I think Kevmy85 is correct - scientists spend their whole lives proving and disproving each other's work as a matter of fact. If they lose credibility, nobody will employ them.

Mr. Loverman

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I hate talking to people who love using strawmen tactics so let's agree to just stop talking to each other.

Well your own initial post is a strawman.

It's clear by using common sense and by reading kevmy85's post that he is well aware that scientists are human and are fallible. Yet you were trying to imply he was arguing otherwise.

Can you point to another profession that is similarly open to criticism, transparent to scrutiny and holds it's members to a high standard of quality in their work?
Can you honestly say that the cranks who churn out the conspiracy theories are even close to that level?

If the answer is no to either of those questions, then what is your objection to kevmy85's post?

jackiebaron

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Didnt the Mysthbusters comprehensivly prove that all the conspiracy theories re the moon were untrue?

Since when are these two **** the authority on everything? Sure, they can conduct some tests to prove that a bullet won't ignite a can of petrol or that you can't jump throw a window and not get cut, or some crap but why do you think that they can verify or disprove the moon landings?

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Since when are these two **** the authority on everything? Sure, they can conduct some tests to prove that a bullet won't ignite a can of petrol or that you can't jump throw a window and not get cut, or some crap but why do you think that they can verify or disprove the moon landings?

Have you seen the episode?
They show several things including how the claims of multiple light sources in the landing pictures are wrong. And they show how you can leave a footprint in dry dust.

They are authorities because they can put their money where their mouth is and test claims, something which moon hoax believers can't do.
Plus it's funny to see people accuse them of being part of the conspiracy as well.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

But why are you on the fence about this?

Being on the fence means that you believe that the silly, nonsensical, cartoonish conspiracy I outlined (which is the minimum you'd need to carry it out) is not only possible, but as likely as the actual reality that they went to the moon.
This is exactly as silly as being on the fence about whether or not the world is flat.

So what specifically do you think "doesn't feel right"?

Why exactly would they even need to pull of such a ridiculous and pointless plot?

It is just possible that the 1969 moon landing was faked .... purely to take the "Russians out of the race". NASA, I read, were livid when Kennedy came out and vowed to have a man on the moon before the decade was done. They said it just wasn't possible. So NASA had all this pressure on them and they had to beat the Russians. Faking the 1969 landing would have diffused public expectations and also the Russians would then give up....so, pressure off, NASA could then get succeeding Apollo missions up up and away and onto the moon a year or two later at a nice leisurely pace. Even if the Russians called BS on it, do you think a single American wouldn't not have called them a bunch of sore-loser, conspiracy theory, cry-babies?
I don't doubt that NASA has put people on the moon. It's doable and it has been done. Also someone asked why China would not simply fake their own moon landing were they to attempt one. Well there are observation satellites orbiting the moon right now...Japan's Kaguya orbiter and I think China have lunar sats as well, so these satellites could easily verify a new lunar landing.

Anway, it is possible, like I said, for NASA to have faked the initial lunar landing...if only to buy time. All the engineers and project personnel could have been convinced to go along or slapped with gag orders. Highly improbable, I know, but not impossible.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

Even if the Russians called BS on it, do you think a single American wouldn't not have called them a bunch of sore-loser, conspiracy theory, cry-babies?

But they didn't call BS. It would make no sense that they wouldn't have.
If the fakery was so obvious that random cranks could figure it out and show the evidence for it, then Russia would have a ton of experts who could surely do the same. And if they knew America had faked it they would have tried to prove it as well as continuing with their own program.
But they did neither because America went to the Moon.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Anway, it is possible, like I said, for NASA to have faked the initial lunar landing...if only to buy time. All the engineers and project personnel could have been convinced to go along or slapped with gag orders. Highly improbable, I know, but not impossible.

So then what's stopping the thousands of scientists working today who could prove beyond a doubt that the moon landing was a fake?
For example, the thousands of people who work on the LRO who would know that there isn't any objects at the Apollo 11 site and could prove it.

It's possible in the sense that your car has a non-zero chance of suddenly turning into an elephant. Possible, but nowhere near likely or reasonable to believe.

Jonny7

The mythbusters episode debunked some of the bad science being used in arguments that NASA didn't land on the moon.

Any other TV shows made on the subject manage the same results
e.g. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4433387097497016625

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

But they didn't call BS. It would make no sense that they wouldn't have.
If the fakery was so obvious that random cranks could figure it out and show the evidence for it, then Russia would have a ton of experts who could surely do the same. And if they knew America had faked it they would have tried to prove it as well as continuing with their own program.
But they did neither because America went to the Moon.


So then what's stopping the thousands of scientists working today who could prove beyond a doubt that the moon landing was a fake?
For example, the thousands of people who work on the LRO who would know that there isn't any objects at the Apollo 11 site and could prove it.

It's possible in the sense that your car has a non-zero chance of suddenly turning into an elephant. Possible, but nowhere near likely or reasonable to believe.

No it's not possible. I have degrees in Science and Mathematics so I'm no fantasist who believes in UFO's or ET life or an afterlife or any of that mumbo-jumbo. I'm well familiar with entropy and probability theory. The kind of transformation of which you speak at the super-atomic level is not possible.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

No it's not possible. I have degrees in Science and Mathematics so I'm no fantasist who believes in UFO's or ET life or an afterlife or any of that mumbo-jumbo. I'm well familiar with entropy and probability theory. The kind of transformation of which you speak at the super-atomic level is not possible.

Sure it is, if you take the object and place it in a totally abstract vacuum, make vast jumps in logic and ignore a bunch of factors.

Which is my point.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

But they didn't call BS. It would make no sense that they wouldn't have.
If the fakery was so obvious that random cranks could figure it out and show the evidence for it, then Russia would have a ton of experts who could surely do the same. And if they knew America had faked it they would have tried to prove it as well as continuing with their own program.
But they did neither because America went to the Moon.


So then what's stopping the thousands of scientists working today who could prove beyond a doubt that the moon landing was a fake?
For example, the thousands of people who work on the LRO who would know that there isn't any objects at the Apollo 11 site and could prove it.

It's possible in the sense that your car has a non-zero chance of suddenly turning into an elephant. Possible, but nowhere near likely or reasonable to believe.

How would you prove beyond a doubt? What you essentially would be trying to do is prove a negative. The whole WMD thing was a fake but people still don't want to admit it. Denial is a very powerful thing. What I'm saying is that it's possible that the 1969 landing was faked. But they successfully conducted the mission at a later date. That's all I'm saying. Every bit of equipment was made use of. Rocks were brought back. They left a flag and a few golfballs and a plaque up there, etc. Just that they may have done so in 1970 or 1971.
It's not a CT that I've given much thought to as I don't really think it's that important.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

Sure it is, if you take the object and place it in a totally abstract vacuum, make vast jumps in logic and ignore a bunch of factors.

Which is my point.

And a foolish point at that.

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

How would you prove beyond a doubt? What you essentially would be trying to do is prove a negative. The whole WMD thing was a fake but people still don't want to admit it. Denial is a very powerful thing.

I couldn't prove it beyond a doubt, because the people who believe it was a hoax would not accept any evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

If the Russians wanted to prove that the moon landing was fake, then they would provide the same evidence that the conspiracy theorist are, but backed up a lot more. Plus they could provide all the telemetry they would have from tracking, or not tracking any missions to the Moon.
And even if this wasn't enough to convince Americans they would certainly want to convince other coubtries as well as their own citizens who would be more than willing to believe America cheated.
And then either way they would still be trying to get to the Moon before America.
The only thing that makes sense of the fact that the Russians never said anything, is that they knew America had beaten them.

jackiebaron wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it's possible that the 1969 landing was faked. But they successfully conducted the mission at a later date. That's all I'm saying. Every bit of equipment was made use of. Rocks were brought back. They left a flag and a few golfballs and a plaque up there, etc. Just that they may have done so in 1970 or 1971.
It's not a CT that I've given much thought to as I don't really think it's that important.

But this still would require thousands of people who would have to be involved in these secret launches in the 1970's. Plus all the people involved in apollos 11 and 12 who had to fake them.
And then there's the thousands more who were working on the project and would have known for a fact that the landings couldn't have happened that early.
No matter how you try to cut the conspiracy would involve a vast amount of people and would be done for no particularly good reason.
It's possible, but not even close to likely.

jackiebaron wrote: »

And a foolish point at that.

That something being technically possible in the strictest sense of the word, it doesn't make it probable or reasonable to believe.

jackiebaron

King Mob wrote: »

I couldn't prove it beyond a doubt, because the people who believe it was a hoax would not accept any evidence or reasoning to the contrary.

If the Russians wanted to prove that the moon landing was fake, then they would provide the same evidence that the conspiracy theorist are, but backed up a lot more. Plus they could provide all the telemetry they would have from tracking, or not tracking any missions to the Moon.
And even if this wasn't enough to convince Americans they would certainly want to convince other coubtries as well as their own citizens who would be more than willing to believe America cheated.
And then either way they would still be trying to get to the Moon before America.
The only thing that makes sense of the fact that the Russians never said anything, is that they knew America had beaten them.

But this still would require thousands of people who would have to be involved in these secret launches in the 1970's. Plus all the people involved in apollos 11 and 12 who had to fake them.
And then there's the thousands more who were working on the project and would have known for a fact that the landings couldn't have happened that early.
No matter how you try to cut the conspiracy would involve a vast amount of people and would be done for no particularly good reason.
It's possible, but not even close to likely.

That something being technically possible in the strictest sense of the word, it doesn't make it probable or reasonable to believe.

You have great faith in a single person stepping up and blowing the cover of an entire operation.
There were thousands of people who knew the WMD in Iraq thing was a fake. How did anyone of them come out and turn and entire nation's opinion around?
I'm sure there were hundreds who knew of conspiracies like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Bloody Sunday, Guildford Four. Once you get people to believe a lie it's practically impossible to undo that and all the scientists and engineers in the world telling you otherwise will also just dismiss them as nutjobs or CT'ers

jackiebaron

jackiebaron wrote: »

You have great faith in a single person stepping up and blowing the cover of an entire operation.

And yet Bill Clinton getting a blowjob came out...
Something which involved 2 people and one was the most powerful man on the planet couldn't be kept quiet.
And yet an operation involving hundreds thousands of people all over the world keeping what would have to be the biggest secret ever for nearly 50 years perfectly?

jackiebaron wrote: »

There were thousands of people who knew the WMD in Iraq thing was a fake. How did anyone of them come out and turn and entire nation's opinion around?

Except that they didn't fake WMDs. They just fudged and faked the intelligence. Which they were called out for....

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm sure there were hundreds who knew of conspiracies like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Bloody Sunday, Guildford Four. Once you get people to believe a lie it's practically impossible to undo that and all the scientists and engineers in the world telling you otherwise will also just dismiss them as nutjobs or CT'ers

But there would have been thousands of people who all knew it was a lie and would have been able to prove it.

Yet there is not a single one has even claimed it, let alone provided the proof they'd need.

It's simply stupid to believe that every single scientist and engineer involved would be in on the conspiracy and it's just not reasonable to entertain that it's plausible.

Monty Burnz

jackiebaron wrote: »

You have great faith in a single person stepping up and blowing the cover of an entire operation.
There were thousands of people who knew the WMD in Iraq thing was a fake. How did anyone of them come out and turn and entire nation's opinion around?

To be fair, the whole WMD thing was shown to be totally fabricated within a couple of months of the invasion.

Ellis Dee

If the moon landings were faked, then the French must have been in on it as well, because they have been participating in measurements involving laser-reflecting mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Americans.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

al28283

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If the moon landings were faked, then the French must have been in on it as well, because they have been participating in measurements involving laser-reflecting mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Americans.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

And the Russians, and the Chinese and any nations with a decent telescope. Also, the world's scientific community as a whole have been fooled for the last 40 years, or maybe they're all in on it too

Monty Burnz

al28283 wrote: »

And the Russians, and the Chinese and any nations with a decent telescope. Also, the world's scientific community as a whole have been fooled for the last 40 years, or maybe they're all in on it too

Also the British. The guys in Jodrell Bank recorded the descent of the LEM onto the lunar surface, and watched it happening live on their instruments.

al28283

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Also the British. The guys in Jodrell Bank recorded the descent of the LEM onto the lunar surface, and watched it happening live on their instruments.

They got to them too? Damn, they're good

stoneill

jackiebaron wrote: »

. NASA, I read, were livid when Kennedy came out and vowed to have a man on the moon before the decade was done. They said it just wasn't possible.

Don't read much then do you.
NASA wasn't livid, they were apprehensive and excited, perhaps doubtful at times but never livid.
Kennedy didn't just have a brainfart and announce this, this was months in discussion with senior NASA officials and advisers. You need to see the Apollo missions in context with the entire build up, from Mercury through Gemini and then Apollo. NASA knew it would be hard, there would be challenges, that there would be setbacks. But the entire might of the US manufacturing machine was utilised during a time of unprecedented patriotism to ensure that the goal set by Kennedy was achieved.
Don't detract from the thousands of workers that made the moon landings happen, The Astronauts were the tip of a very large ice-berg. NASA and their sub-contractors were full of very clever people, doing very clever things under very tight schedules.

Lots of quotes go around about how expensive Apollo was, how much money was taken from the US economy ($40,000,000,000 approx) during the decade.
To put this in perspective - that is equivalent to the same amount of money that was spent on road construction in the US during the same time frame.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Have you seen the episode?
They show several things including how the claims of multiple light sources in the landing pictures are wrong. And they show how you can leave a footprint in dry dust.

They are authorities because they can put their money where their mouth is and test claims, something which moon hoax believers can't do.
Plus it's funny to see people accuse them of being part of the conspiracy as well.

they went to the moon to show it was possible?

wiki mythbuster moon_landing
the episode i saw did not prove that the moon landing was real or fake, it proved that some of the reasons being used to as evidence that it was a fake were incorrect.

in fact one could argue that the showed how to fake a moon landing.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

they went to the moon to show it was possible?

wiki mythbuster moon_landing
the episode i saw did not prove that the moon landing was real or fake, it proved that some of the reasons being used to as evidence that it was a fake were incorrect.

in fact one could argue that the showed how to fake a moon landing.

Well no they didn't.
First they took the argument that "One of the NASA photos is fake because the shadows of the rocks and lunar lander are not parallel therefore the had to have been two light sources and therefore was not on the moon." Then they showed how this was not true.
Then they took the second argument: "One of the NASA photos is fake because Buzz Aldrin can be clearly seen while in the shadow of the lunar lander." and again showed how this could happen with only one light source.

They showed these very common arguments to be false simply and effectively, and neither of the results depends on them needing to go to the Moon.

They did not show how it could have been faked since some of their experiments involved a vacuum chamber. And there simply isn't a vacuum chamber big enough for a film set.

Myrddin

I'm not a doubter of the moon landings, but I honestly thought that Myth Busters episode was rubbish...like the majority of them.

To play devils advocate...their 'blacked out' part, had no top cover. The studio ceiling & lighting could easily taint the results.

The footprint they left in the vacuum chamber sand? The sand was given to them by Nasa.

The Zero G stuff was absolute nonsense.

Again, I don't doubt the moon landings were real. To me, it'd be easier to actually go & do the mission, rather than cover it up for 40 years & have everyone silenced. The other nations also would have known. But the show wouldn't have convinced me if I was a doubter.